Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Peter Wendell <pwendell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:55:06 -0700
Dean A. Scott wrote:
> the first 7 or so of those links... were all considered by the
NTSB and FAA to be operating under part 91 because they were A. two seaters or B. they didn't meet part 103 restrictions...
Then here's the question... wouldn't that determination be the RESULT of the investigation? That is, how would an NTSB investigator know a UL is not 103 compliant until AFTER they had investigated (seen) the wreckage and whatever it is that disqualifies it, throwing it back up to part 91 for their final report?
Again, repeating myself for the fourth time, the NTSB SAYS they will investigate a 103 incident _IF_ reported to them. Have they? Don't know. By the lack of that category in their database, it appears none have, but the database could be suspect due to missing entries.
Come on Dean, your playing at semantics. The only reason the NTSB even wrote those reports is BECAUSE the aircraft in question did NOT meet part 103.
I don't understand why you're being so defensive. Part 103 is part 103. It is NOT regulated in anyway. The governement does no even consider part 103 vehicles to be aircraft. Unfortunately, Mike is right. There is absolutely no reliable data showing that part 103 vehicles are safer than aircraft flown under part 91, certified or experimental, simply because there is no reliable data about the accidents per hour of part 103 vehicles. You can not produce any data contradicting this because there is none. Your argument is one of passion and not fact.
.
- References:
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Dean A. Scott
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: sleepy6
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Dean A. Scott
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Mike Marron
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: sleepy6
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Mike Marron
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: sleepy6
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Mike Marron
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Lakeview Bill
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Mike Marron
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Frank
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Lakeview Bill
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: sleepy6
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Ross Carlisle
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Dean A. Scott
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Peter Wendell
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- From: Dean A. Scott
- Re: A fat ultralight?
- Prev by Date: Re: titanium ti-downs ?
- Next by Date: Re: A fat ultralight?
- Previous by thread: Re: A fat ultralight?
- Next by thread: Re: A fat ultralight?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|